waggon now? And you would, and shall, be blown up
with it if you ever again attempt to touch another. So
be good, and believe in your father.' Sir Harry said
that the astonishment of the Kaffirs at this trick was
excessive; and so ought to have been Lord Grey's when
he read it. Sir Harry also harangued the Kaffirs in
speeches full of bombast and rhodomontade, with a
mixture of religion, or rather of blasphemy, beginning
with a curse and ending with a prayer, much after the
fashion of a mock oration of a trooper of Cromwell.
Thus, by alternately coaxing and threatening the
Kaffirs, by alternately praising and reviling them, by
playing all manners of fantastic and mountebank tricks,
by aping the manners of the savage, Sir Harry thought
to civilise the Kaffirs and to impose upon them. But
the Kaffirs laughed at him, turned him into ridicule,
and imposed upon him." Sir W. Molesworth feared
that, unless we withdrew our forces from the Cape,
we must he prepared for a charge of £700,000 or
£1,000,000 a year more than the value of the colony,
which, having recently set this country at defiance,
would be more than a match for Sandilli and all his
people. In conclusion, Sir William estimated the
ultimate saving in the military expenditure for the colonies
at £1,600,000, besides £130,000 out of the civil expenditure.
—Mr. HAWES said, he could not pretend to reply
off-hand to a speech of such research and detail as that
of Sir William Molesworth; he therefore contented
himself with generally criticising the speech, as founded
on pecuniary considerations—as recommending the
absolute abandonment of the mass of our non-military
colonies. He deprecated ridicule against Sir Harry Smith
in his absence: and, as the most conciliatory mode of
meeting the motion consistently with his duty, he moved
"the previous question," rather than the direct negative.
—Mr. ADDERLEY and Mr. Cobden supported the motion;
the latter said that Sir W. Molesworth's speech had
exhausted the subject and could not be answered.—
Lord J. RUSSELL considered this a most important
question, for it was not a question of retaining an
expense of £1,600,000, but whether the tendency of our
policy should be for the maintenance or dissolution of
the empire. It was not a question of diminishing the
military establishments, but of taking away the whole
of the military force from those colonies which were not
convict or military stations. It was impossible to
consider this question without endeavouring to trace the
consequences of such a policy. It had been said that
the colonies would remain attached to us by identity of
race; but this consideration would not govern all of
them—Canada and the Cape, for example. It was also
assumed that there would be perpetual peace, but a
sudden turn of events might involve us in hostilities with
some power in Europe, when the colonies might become
the stations of hostile fleets and privateers. It was quite
evident that if the proposed plan were carried into
effect, this country could not maintain its position and
reputation in the world, and that foreign powers would
be tempted to concert plans of attacking us. Reductions
were in gradual progress in some of the colonies, but
this was an attempt to apply the same rule at once to
all. These were questions to be decided from time to
time, under the supervision and control of the house,
which he trusted would be exercised with a view to
maintain the integrity of this mighty empire.—Upon
the motion of Mr. HUME, the debate was adjourned.

On Friday, April 11, on the order of the day for
going into committee on the Assessed Taxes Act, Mr.
DISRAELI moved the following amendment—"That, in
any relief to be granted by the remission or adjustment
of taxation, due regard should be paid to the Distressed
Condition of the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the
United Kingdom." The debate which followed, on
this exhausted subject, though somewhat long, was void
of novelty or interest. Mr. Disraeli made no specific
propositions, nor even hinted at any which, in his
opinion, ought to be adopted.—Mr. LABOUCHERE
professed himself mystified alike by the motion and the
speech: the latter seemed to be a "financial exercitation,"
leaving the aims of the speaker in greater doubt
than before. But, at all events, it seemed aimed at the
budget—"sufficient for the day is the budget thereof."
—Mr. GLADSTONE was not satisfied either with the
budget or with the shadowy and vague plan of Mr.
Disraeli; but he gave his vote for the budget, as
containing the least amount of evil.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL
described the repeated opposition motions brought
forward on this subject as mere delusions attempted to be
practised on the house and the country. "Honourable
members," he said, "would be dealing more fairly and
candidly with the great body of their countrymen, if
either they were to propose that Parliament should give
relief by the remission of certain duties which they
imagine affect the landed interest, and that then we
should hear no more of protection—that great source of
dissension should be for ever dried up; or if they said
fairly, 'We stand boldly on the question of protection:
if protection is restored, we succeed—if it is denied, we
fail.' Let it be a fair motion, and not a delusive motion,
and, as becomes a great party in this country, let them
put the issue fairly between us."—The other speakers
were Mr. Stafford, Lord John Manners, Mr. Miles, Mr.
Newdegate, Sir Robert Peel, Sir W. Joliffe, Colonel
Sibthorp, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Keogh, and Sir Thomas
Ackland, in favour of Mr. Disraeli's amendment; and
Mr. Bright, Sir C. Wood, Mr. M. O'Connell, and Mr.
J. O'Connell, in favour of government.—On a division
the numbers were—For Mr. Disraeli's amendment, 250;
against it, 263: ministerial majority, 13.

On Monday, April 14th, the St. Alban's Election
Committee reported that Mr. Jacob Bell was duly elected;
but as they had been prevented from obtaining necessary
evidence as to the improper practices alleged to have
been carried on at the St. Alban's election, they
recommended a commission for inquiring into the
circumtances. Subsequently a debate took place on the
consideration of the committee's proceedings in regard
to Henry Edwards, the result of which was a division
on the question of adjourning the discussion until
Tuesday. Such adjournment (advocated by government)
was carried by 108 to 87, majority 21.

The house then went into committee on The Assessed
Taxes Act. The resolutions proposed by the CHANCELLOR
OF THE EXCHEQUER for abolishing the window tax, and
for imposing, in substitution for it, the new house tax,
were (after considerable conversational discussion, and the
withdrawal by Sir B. Hall of his threatened opposition
to the latter tax) agreed to.

The house resumed, and immediately went into
committee on The Timber and Coffee Duties Act.—Mr.
BARING argued against the proposed abolition of the
differential duties on coffee, as did Mr. PRINSEP, who
complained of the injury which the measure would
inflict upon the coffee growers in Ceylon.—The
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER replied, contending that the
only effect of the duties was to exclude a valuable kind
of coffee, and that the abolition would not injure the
colonial producer, inasmuch as we already imported
more coffee than we consumed at home.—Mr. STANLEY
spoke at some length in favour of protective duties, and
argued that it was impossible for our colonists to compete
with the slave labour of Brazil.—Mr. LABOUCHERE said
that to yield to the latter argument would be to reverse
our whole system of commercial policy.—Mr. WAKLEY
strongly urged upon the government to prevent the
adulteration of coffee, by withdrawing the minute of
1840, suspending the Excise regulation upon the subject.
He gave a medical opinion that chicory was a pernicious
article, and demanded protection for the honest trader
against the adulterator. Other hon. members urged
the same view of the subject. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had had medical authority the other way,
and not believing chicory to be deleterious, could not
agree to the suggestions made to him. The resolutions
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were then agreed to,
and the house resumed.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Sir D. L. EVANS called the attention of the house to the
Ornamenting of the New House of Commons, which he
said had been persisted in by Mr. Barry in opposition to
the declared wishes of the house.—Mr. GREENE
explained that, although it was his impression that Mr.
Barry had understood the feeling of the house to be
opposed to the decorations complained of, it appeared
that the architect himself did not admit such an
understanding. Some of the ornamental work had been